D&D General ShortQuests Are Digest-Sized D&D Adventures

Eyes of Nine · 2026-03-11T01:28:44+0000

Good stuff, I think I'll be backing at towards the end. so... The article here doesn't mention that ti's an ENWorld production; nor does the promo image except on the cover images it's quite small...

Notwithstanding the minor quibble above, as this matches my interests, I am very liable to back because of ENWorld's track record of shipping pdf upon crowdfund completion and hardcopy within a reasonable timeframe (like 1-2 months iirc?).
In addition, the quality is consistently high with ENWorld products.

And now that I've changed banks, my card doesn't choke on non-USD currency, so purchase will be a breeze.
It's just about my own funds at this point...

(This was NOT a paid endorsement

)

Belen · 2026-03-11T11:53:34+0000

I still think the 5.5 tag is a mistake.

...m... · 2026-03-11T13:51:16+0000

Belen said:
I still think the 5.5 tag is a mistake.

...yeah, i generally avoid anything expressly designed for 5.24 and those stickers convey a strong impression that any other 5e ecosystem compatibility is a squint-and-it's-close-enough afterthought...

...regardless: modules are great!..the market's gone through a weird lifecycle where the dearth of brick-and-mortar distribution killed viability of the form-factor in favor of hardcover campaigns and anthologies, only for them to sneak back around where they started, as indie zines rather than the big perfect-bound floppies they evolved into...

...i do think brendan's onto something, where clever packaging might combine both a hardcover and floppy/loose form-factors into a single product suitable for both markets...TSR experimented with the idea for about ten years and although they never quite got it right, the potential remains...

Bravesteel25 · 2026-03-11T14:32:07+0000

I really missed the old modules like this. Unfortunately the size of these makes it a no-go for me for physical versions, but I might back this for the digital.

aiouh · 2026-03-11T17:38:51+0000

...m... said:
...yeah, i generally avoid anything expressly designed for 5.24 and those stickers convey a strong impression that any other 5e ecosystem compatibility is a squint-and-it's-close-enough afterthought...

As much as I have a personal antipathy for 5.24/5.5 because I find the revision quite pointless I don't agree. If it's an adventure I think there is very little that can break any sort of compatibility. Case in point, the new FR Adventures book is entirely compatible with 5.0 if you just use the statblocks from the according Monster Manual.

For me, an adventure made for 5.5 just signals that this adventure is new and they run off assumptions set in the new revision. If you are playing 5.0 you need to account for that possibly.

Morrus · 2026-03-11T17:47:23+0000

aiouh said:
As much as I have a personal antipathy for 5.24/5.5 because I find the revision quite pointless I don't agree. If it's an adventure I think there is very little that can break any sort of compatibility. Case in point, the new FR Adventures book is entirely compatible with 5.0 if you just use the statblocks from the according Monster Manual.

Basically monster stat blocks have a slightly different layout (and that only matters for new stat blocks—if you just say “three goblins” you can use the 2024 or 2014 MM goblin). As far as adventures go, there’s not much else that the edition change affects. Maybe a changed spell or something might interact with something plot critical differently, but stuff like that is rare and doesn’t apply to any of these five adventures. Adventures are the most edition-portable type of content. Even WotC still sells its 2014 adventures as compatible with 2024.

(Hell I ran a 1980s Dragonlance module in D&D 2014 and had no trouble whatsoever, and the difference between 1E and 5E is much greater than 5E and 5.5E).

...m... · 2026-03-11T17:50:52+0000

...oh i don't disagree, which is why i make a point about material expressly for 5.24; generic 5e is fine but 5.24 mechanics carry homework and genre assumptions i'd rather not bother with in a market saturated with other options...

(mind, none of this speaks specifically to this project; merely noting the negative connotations of a big 5.5e sticker)

Morrus · 2026-03-11T17:52:12+0000

...m... said:
...oh i don't disagree, which is why i make a point about material expressly for 5.24; generic 5e is fine but 5.24 mechanics carry homework and genre assumptions i'd rather not bother with in a saturated market...

It doesn’t say expressly 5.5E though. In fact it specifically says the opposite—it says 5E or 2024.

...m... · 2026-03-11T17:59:24+0000

Morrus said:
It doesn’t say expressly 5.5E though. In fact it specifically says the opposite—it says 5E or 2024.

...i do understand your design goals, as well as the marketing reasons why you've labelled it thusly; i'm speaking to my first reaction if i were to stumble upon the project absent insider-context...

Brendan Byrd · 2026-03-11T18:13:07+0000

@...m...

...m... said:
...i do think brendan's onto something, where clever packaging might combine both a hardcover and floppy/loose form-factors into a single product suitable for both markets...TSR experimented with the idea for about ten years and although they never quite got it right, the potential remains...

When I initially saw this, I was assuming it would be a bundle of five individual “booklets”, offset printing, and possibly shrink-wrapped.
(If it’s not in distribution, the FLGS won’t carry it…)
Now that there are more details available, I know my assumptions were incorrect.

I’ve since realized that a loose leaf edition would probably need to be reformatted to adjust the margins, and maybe change some “two page spreads” to r/v…and that would be extra work, and extra cost.
(I need at least 10mm of margin to avoid obliterating text, for my preferred notebooks)
For me, it’s a matter of a shelf copy and a guilt-free working copy; but I’m sure I’m in the minority on this.